Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions
Line 222: | Line 222: | ||
*I have given the titles of two guides on your talk page. I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. As I have pointed out to you several times, there is more than one way to present the information; ''you'' don't get to come in and decide, as it's something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not by you forcing your preferred version in over and over again. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
*I have given the titles of two guides on your talk page. I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. As I have pointed out to you several times, there is more than one way to present the information; ''you'' don't get to come in and decide, as it's something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not by you forcing your preferred version in over and over again. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
* {{AN3|s}} I think the request is stale now and a block isn't needed to stop disruption. I have, however, protected the page for a week. [[User:Morton Thiokol|Morton Thiokol]], please take this as a warning to avoid edit warring behavior in the future. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
* {{AN3|s}} I think the request is stale now and a block isn't needed to stop disruption. I have, however, protected the page for a week. [[User:Morton Thiokol|Morton Thiokol]], please take this as a warning to avoid edit warring behavior in the future. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
Style rules are debatable. But grammar rules are not. How noteworthy that you opt to defend a provably incorrect use of punctuation by a user who can't provide any support that his misuse is acceptable. |
|||
== [[User:VOR707TRX]] reported by [[User:You've gone incognito]] (Result: Warned) == |
== [[User:VOR707TRX]] reported by [[User:You've gone incognito]] (Result: Warned) == |
Revision as of 21:28, 14 December 2019
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||
User: Redditor132 reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page: John and Lorena Bobbitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redditor132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here and here.
Comments:
Editor is obviously adding their personal POV to the lead while describing the addition as solely factual and as "the most neutral possible text." Username says it all. And so does this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Also take note that this removal by me regarding the "Years after the incident" piece is not part of my dispute with Redditor132. We have both removed that piece. That piece is in the stable version, before Redditor132's edits as this IP and as the Redditor132 account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I kindly ask admins to read the original and compare it to my edit, then assess which is more neutral and factual. This person wishes to keep the clearly one-sided inflammatory introduction despite it being inferior simply due to the fact it satisfies his/her point of view about the matter. Wikipedia should be the one place people can get facts, not be just another tabloid. Redditor132 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- You were also reverted by me and by Beauty School Dropout. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Redditor132, you didn't receive any traction for the edits you want to make as an an IP, or with an account. I imagine you will have a difficult time finding consensus to make said changes as they are definitely not neutral, despite your claims otherwise. The 3RR report was valid when made though it appears to be Stale now; that being said, if you attempt to make further edits to the lead in this vein without first obtaining consensus on the talk page, I imagine a block will be forthcoming.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Look I get the point. Women insist every man deserves it whenever this mutilation happens to him because they have some weird hatred/disgust of this particular male bodypart. Write a blog or post it on social media. You can even go on Television. But I don't understand why you want to omit the neutral fact that John was mutilated right after he filed for divorce. Or the fact that after the arrest she told the police that she did it because he was selfish in bed. The original version is most certainly not neutral, I think you can all agree. My edit adds some facts. If you want to word it in a different way but keep those facts please do.Redditor132 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- The venue to make any further arguments would be Talk:John and Lorena Bobbitt; however, if you continue to use Wikipedia as an avenue to peddle ludicrous claims such as "Women insist every man deserves it whenever this mutilation happens to him because they have some weird hatred/disgust of this particular male bodypart", you will be shown the door in short order.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll make it as simple as possible. The original edit of the article is inflammatory, non-POV, and attempts to justify and take the side of the mutilator. All I did was add facts of the case. Why are you against that?
- And yes it's a fact whenever mutilation of this particular part of the male body happens most women will indeed laugh and say he deserved it. This is just female nature. It's the reason I've got so many hostile female editors trying to revert me and ban me over my edit.Redditor132 (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Result: I'm marking this report as Stale per User:Ponyo. Though the reported user, Redditor132, would be making a mistake if they try to do this revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked this editor as NOTHERE based on their latest comment on this page. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- The venue to make any further arguments would be Talk:John and Lorena Bobbitt; however, if you continue to use Wikipedia as an avenue to peddle ludicrous claims such as "Women insist every man deserves it whenever this mutilation happens to him because they have some weird hatred/disgust of this particular male bodypart", you will be shown the door in short order.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Samp4ngeles reported by The Four Deuces (Result: Blocked)
Page: Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Samp4ngeles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [7] 20:59, 10 December 2019
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [8] 02:31, 12 December 2019 "fixed link on this citation, which is notable given that it contradicted CDC guidance at the time. It also helps add context for anyone researching the SARS issue. It would be of interest given her presidential candidacy. Perhaps also notable given that she and her father took the same stance."
- [9] 02:49, 12 December 2019 "Sorry, TFD, but if you read the citation that it clearly wasn't the CDC's position -- and if you go to your own source on the talk page (the CDC link), you'll see that it said, "In the United States , where there was limited transmission of SARS-CoV during the 2003 SARS outbreak, neither individual nor population-based quarantine of contacts was recommended." See [10])"
The text added back was " advocated quarantining travelers to Hawaii who had symptoms of SARS."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12] 22:05, 10 December 2019
Comments:
The article is under 1RR. The editor was previously warned and reported about edit-warring on this article and received a warning from an administrator.[13] I asked the editor to revert but they refused to do so.[14] TFD (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours for violation of the 1RR. The user was asked to self-revert but declined to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Honest Yusuf Cricket reported by User:Christianster94 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Dumbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [15]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [16] (14:46, 11 December 2019)
- [17] (22:00, 10 December 2019)
- [18] (21:59, 10 December 2019)
- [19] (01:20, 9 December 2019)
- [20] (22:56, 7 December 2019)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]
Comments:
Honest Yusuf Cricket is making a substantial addition to the "Controversy" section in which it states the crows are accused of being stereotypes of African-Americans. He's made useful additions like the name of the leader being changed sometime ago and posting some commentary sources defending the characters. However, he insists on posting an entire text of an essay from a former Disney animator named Floyd Norman who denies the crows are harmful stereotypes. I have attempted to mitigate his edits by posting only the main gist of the essay. However, ever single time, Yusuf Cricket has reverted my and other users' edits and re-posted the entire text the way he wants it.
Basically, his additions, as well-intentioned as they are, make that section particularly read long and cluttered. It also gives more weight to the defending side when I feel violates our neutrality rules. Yusuf Cricket has been told numerous times by other editors on their talk page to stop being non-constructive and I attempted to discuss with him on the article's talk page, but received no response. He's already surpassed the three no-revert rule. Christianster94 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Christianster94: I don't see where they have crossed the three reverts in 24 hours brightline. That said, there needs to be some discussion on the talk page. Thank you for starting one about the crows. Please consider bringing in more voices with a request for comment or for a third option if the discussion stalls. I have advised HYC that if they do not engage in discussion and a consensus emerges, they could be reverted for going against the consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @C.Fred: That's only because I didn't revert quickly enough and I also didn't want to become participatory in edit warring. It's been going for almost a week ago and I'm nearly fed with the user. HYC has made no attempt to discuss his changes despite being directed to on his talk page, and I see again HYC has reverted the changes I made last night.
- I'll hold out a little while longer, but based on his edit history, HYC wants to keep his changes no matter what. Christianster94 (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours. The User:Honest Yusuf Cricket continued to add back his material, including the word 'Liverpool', at 02:25 on 13 December after this edit warring report was open. This edit came after the warning on his talk page by User:C.Fred. HYC seems unwilling to accept others' opinions that his material is excessive and risks violating the copyright of the original article by Floyd Norman. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
User:108.30.105.141 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: Declined)
- Page
- Kingdome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 108.30.105.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User being reported
- Larry Hockett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 06:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930279865 by Larry Hockett (talk)"
- 11:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930257248 by Larry Hockett (talk)"
- 07:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC) ""
- 06:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930128486 by Larry Hockett (talk) unexplained removal"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 06:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kingdome. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This seems to be a general problem for this IP - I assume WP:SPAM, since all the edits to several pages are to point to the same blog. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is a dispute over whether this link -- [23] -- is valid or not. 108.30.105.141 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I got carried away. The edits came across to me as blatant spam (especially given the lack of explanation for why this personal web page represented an exception under WP:ELNO #1 and #11). I see now that removing spam is not really an exemption from 3RR. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Larry Hockett: On the one hand, it's not enumerated on WP:3RR as an exception to the brightline. On the other hand, the correct place to report obvious spam is WP:AIV, the vandalism noticeboard. In future, report spammers there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I got carried away. The edits came across to me as blatant spam (especially given the lack of explanation for why this personal web page represented an exception under WP:ELNO #1 and #11). I see now that removing spam is not really an exemption from 3RR. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This edit seems a might suspicious: welcoming a newly created user account with zero (0) edits. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Declined
- In the case of the IP, because it has gone quiet for several hours, and because there's no evidence it's a static IP, I'm not going to block the IP.
- In the case of Larry Hockett, who was added to the report by the IP, I'm going to err on the side of assuming good faith that he thought reverting blatant spam was a 3RR exception. For future occurrences, the user is advised to report the spam at WP:AIV and not cross the 3RR brightline.
- Additonally, I'm watching the Kingdome article and would not hesitate to block the IP for spam if they were to readd the link without gaining consensus at the talk page or if there is further edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
User seems to have moved to a new IP: 207.140.167.27. Previous IP in Brooklyn, this in Newark, exact same style on same articles. Should this go to SPI? Tarl N. (discuss) 20:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have warned the user and reverted the edits. It could go to SPI, but it's obvious enough that AIV would also handle it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Michael N Gichuri reported by User:Kuru (Result: Blocked)
Page: M-Pesa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael N Gichuri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: First addition, as IP
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:19, simple revert
- 16:50, re-addition of unsourced material
- 08:31, simple revert
- 07:59, simple revert
- 07:44, simple revert
- 05:19, simple revert
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned at 12:26
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion started by Veikk0.ma, no participation by subject.
Comments:
Simple violation of 3RR to repeatedly introduce an unsourced claim by a clearly COI and self-promotional account. Kuru (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Peteski132 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Peteski132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "If these important facts (with factual sources cited) have been edited back and forth for 3 to 4 days, why has this not already been discussed by any one on the talk page in the last 3 to 4 days? If multiple people "went with me" and multiple people "went against me," who decides? Important facts with factual sources cited should definitely be in the lead and in the article. Most is already in the article down below in the Jewish section"
- 03:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "If these important facts (with factual sources cited) have been edited back and forth for 3 to 4 days, why has this not already been discussed by any one on the talk page in the last 3 to 4 days? If multiple people "went with me" and multiple people "went against me," who decides? Shouldn't important facts with factual sources cited be in the lead and in the article? Most is already in the article down below in the Jewish section"
- 03:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "I already went to talk page with no response because these facts of the utmost importance (with factual sources cited) belong in the lead, and in the article."
- 02:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Many editors "went with me"; why do people have a visceral reaction when facts of the utmost importance are stated with factual sources cited?"
- 02:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Many editors "went with me"; why do people have a visceral reaction when facts of the utmost importance are stated with factual sources cited?"
- 02:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Please don't undo facts of the utmost importance from the lead or article, with multiple factual sources cited. Why are people having visceral reactions when facts of the utmost importance are states with factual sources cited?"
- Consecutive edits made from 02:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC) to 02:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- 02:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Multiple editors also "went with me" because facts of the utmost importance belong in the lead"
- 02:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Multiple editors also "went with me" because facts of the utmost importance belong in the lead"
- Consecutive edits made from 01:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC) to 01:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- 01:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930515923 by RotarenegEmem (talk) Stop removing facts of the utmost importance from the lead"
- 01:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Facts of the utmost importance and relevance such as this absolutely go in the lead, with multiple factual sources cited"
- 00:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Facts of the utmost importance and relevance such as this absolutely go in the lead, with multiple factual sources cited."
- 00:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Facts of the utmost importance and relevance such as this absolutely go in the lead, with multiple factual sources cited"
- Consecutive edits made from 02:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC) to 03:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- 02:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC) "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
- 02:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC) "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
- 02:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC) "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
- 03:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC) "The most Vital and Important point regarding this topic is that Judaism considers the worship of any person idolatry, and in G-d's absolute Unity, with various, different factual sources cited"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 02:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jesus. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
- Blocked – 72 hours by User:Rmhermen. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Morton Thiokol reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Stale)
Page: Mercedes-Benz OM601 engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Morton Thiokol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]
Comments:
Schrocat says: "I have given you details of two of the major style guides that support what I have said"
Where? I see you insisting you are right, but no supporting documentation, only assertion.
I, however, have provided supporting proof that a colon precedes an enumerated list.
Where's your proof? Thanks! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I left details on your talk page some time ago. You have not referred to any external guides, just your assertions you are not in error. - SchroCat (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I did indeed link to an external guide, right there in my Edit summary. Here it is yet again: https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/colon.html I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. Where's your link to an external guide saying that it's acceptable to use a comma to precede a list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morton Thiokol (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have given the titles of two guides on your talk page. I hope you won't deny seeing it this time. As I have pointed out to you several times, there is more than one way to present the information; you don't get to come in and decide, as it's something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not by you forcing your preferred version in over and over again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Stale I think the request is stale now and a block isn't needed to stop disruption. I have, however, protected the page for a week. Morton Thiokol, please take this as a warning to avoid edit warring behavior in the future. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Style rules are debatable. But grammar rules are not. How noteworthy that you opt to defend a provably incorrect use of punctuation by a user who can't provide any support that his misuse is acceptable.
User:VOR707TRX reported by User:You've gone incognito (Result: Warned)
Page: Rebecca Kiessling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VOR707TRX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [31]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]
Comments:
- User insists on reverting the already neutral term "anti-abortion activist" (referring to opponents of abortion) to "pro-life activist", which Wikipedia has long been opposed to as such political framing does not adhere to a neutral point of view and is loaded: [38]. His argument in my talk essentially says that "anti-abortion" is biased and panders to leftists (which generally are pro-choice), and went on to soapbox his personal views on the issue to get his point across: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:You%27ve_gone_incognito&diff=930533866&oldid=929736453
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by You've gone incognito (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Result: User:VOR707TRX is warned they may be blocked if they revert again without getting prior consensus on the article talk page. I'm also alerting them to the discretionary sanctions on abortion under WP:ARBAB. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
User:114.4.79.86 reported by User:Wira rhea (Result: Blocked)
Page: Badak Lampung F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 114.4.79.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Comments:
- Blocked – 31 hours by User:Ad Orientem. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
User:GUtt01 reported by User:Hsinghsarao (Result: Blocked)
Page: 2019 United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GUtt01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diffs of the user's reverts as seen by AussieLegend (additional detail!): These diffs replace the diffs provided by the original reporter.
- 16:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930600384 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - While there is no general consensus on the Lead's layout, I looked towards the Lead for the 2017 General Election article to determine how best to present this
- 16:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930601084 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - It does not change the nature of what the Lead states. Instead it outlines things as clearly as possible.
- 16:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930602746 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - Unexplained reversion, no reason given
- 16:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930603114 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - There is no need to revert it for grammar and spelling mistakes; just fix them yourself. The general outlay of this Lead is to detail the general result of the election when it was called for, the reasons behind the election taking place, and the results for notable parties that gained/lost seats
- 16:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930603529 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - Layout of Lead is fine. People can amend if needed, but the layout you propose is problematic
- 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930603725 by Hsinghsarao (talk) Rving edit - I made clear in an EDIT SUMMARY ALREADY.
- 16:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Rving edits - Official Results put Labour's losses to 59 seats; do not duplicate a statement about worst loss for Labour
- 17:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930606774 by Aréat (talk) Sources are reliable, and DO NOT STATE THIS RESULT!!! Labour lost 59 seats. There is no evidence to show it was 60 (This was self-reverted after 3 minutes)
- 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930610730 by Executiveop (talk) Rving edit - Unnecessary addition. It is not given that nickname by anyone in official sources
- 19:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930624450 by GHDmnespafro (talk)
- 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930630206 by FM913067555 (talk) Rving edit - I believe another editor stressed it overcomplicated the Infobox. Such a detail is best left to the main bulk of the article
- 20:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930633260 by Dlíodóir95 (talk) This is something to discuss on Talk Page, really. I've checked along all the articles for General Elections, and although it's hard to tell, they don't show anyone having anything in "( _ )", except where two parties formed an alliance. (This was self-reverted after 34 minutes)
- 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930644218 by PlanetDeadwing (talk) Per British Law, the Speaker of the House of Commons severs all ties to their affilated party upon being elected as Speaker. Thus this result does not include their Constituency Seat for that party; they represent themselves for it as an Independent..
- 23:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC) Undid revision 930649468 by GoodDay (talk) Rving edit - There are plenty of sources that dispute the change. If the change is to reflect the party that Speaker of the House of Commons came from, read the article about what happens when they are elected to the role.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: # [39]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: # diff
Comments:
I believe this user is not making these edits in bad faith, but the format of the lede he keeps restoring is very poor.
Me | Talk 17:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- The warnings to the user on the talk page were also reverted by him, inexplicably.
- diff original state of the article, before edit warring began.
This person also made early non-constructive edits
and then
before trying to force his version of the article on to the page despite numerous spelling and grammar errors and without giving a reason to change the original form of the lede, aside from saying that it was 'problematic'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsinghsarao (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The persistent reverting by GUtt01 should be of great concern. Only 12 days ago, he was involved in an edit war at List of The Grand Tour episodes where he reverted 6 times in 3 hours.[40][41][42][43][44][45] On that occasion I left him a warning and noted that he had actually violated 3RR,[46][47] but chose not to submit a report when he posted to my talk page claiming he was going to stop.[48] After seeing this edit war I believe I made a mistake as GUtt01 seems unable to control himself when editing. Hsinghsarao did indeed leave GUtt01 a notification about this report but left the warning before compiling the report, which is why GUtt01 removed the notification. At least that's what he said after I opened a discussion on his talk page in an attempt to resolve the problem. At that time he had made 8 reversions in an hour. However, his responses clearly indicate that he does not understand he did anything wrong. He even said I don't believe I did anything wrong.
, after he had already reverted 8 times,[49] instead continuing to try to blame the other editor. In that same minute he went on to revert a 9th time.[50] My advice to stop editing the article[51] was clearly ignored because he went on to revert several more times and he has continued to revert as shown in the detailed diffs that I added above. Of the 14 documented reversions, 2 have been self-reverted but that still leaves 12 reversions in 7 hours which is well beyond the 4 needed to violate WP:3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
And he still doesn't get it. After posting the above, he left this message on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours. Per his comments at User talk:GUtt01#Edit-warring, GUtt01 seems not to grasp our edit warring policy. ("I understand, but I don't believe I did anything wrong"). EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Hirolovesswords reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: )
- Page
- Mike Kelly (gridiron football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Hirolovesswords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "No explanation for removal of sourced content"
- 19:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "sentence does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or undue weight. The incident is notable and well-documented, it belongs in the article (see Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN)"
- 13:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930482358 by GridIronFootball (talk)"
- 18:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 930378542 by GridIronFootball (talk)"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mike Kelly (gridiron football). (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Repeatedly reinserting contentious material to a BLP despite being advised Edit-warring to shoehorn in a potential BLPVIO? Take it to talk, get a consensus of editors who agree with your assessment and there you have it. But as you must know better than me, BLPs always verge towards caution
. ——SN54129 20:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Also noting, as I murmured elsewhere, BLP concerns take precedence, and per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content
, however long it's been in the article. ——SN54129 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just an added note, it looks like the person they were mostly reverting claims to be the subject of the article.[52] Also as mentioned at help desk this was discussed in the past at BLPN. PackMecEng (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Edit5001 reported by User:Triacylglyceride (Result: )
Page: Catholic Church and abortion
User being reported: User:Edit5001
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&oldid=927403458
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930539977&oldid=930537483
- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930487433&oldid=930426722
- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930399741&oldid=930399364
- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&diff=930383368&oldid=930379273
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church_and_abortion#Countries_to_list;_how_to_list_views
Comments:
Hi. First time making a report on another user. I believe this article is under 1RR because of it's relation to abortion; the user in question made three reversions in 24 hours. I want to confess that I've realized my own reversions have, on occasion, fallen just below 24 hours. I'm a casual Wikipedian, and check once a day or so. I'm open to criticism on that count. Normally I wouldn't escalate at this time, but I saw multiple related warnings on the user's talk page. Thanks for your time, and I apologize if I'm misusing this tool. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Edit5001 is coming off a recent block for 3RR violations at Abortion in the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- There is no editnotice at the article for a 1RR restriction.
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Was Edit5001 given a DS alert related to this topic area?—C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)- Answered my own question: yes. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- There is no editnotice at the article for a 1RR restriction.
- I didn't know the article was 1RR so I apologize if it is, I was following 3RR. There has been an issue here with Triacylglyceride failing to address my points/concerns (or the points/concerns of multiple others) on the Talk page, never offering any type of consensus we could agree on in the edits, and at times flat out stops responding even when politely pinged for a response. I suppose I should have asked for arbitration or something along those lines, but I really hoped we would've been able to resolve this through discussion or simply adjusting eachother's edits instead of having mine simply reverted. I've had many instances in the past where myself and other users worked on edits together, listened to eachother's points, and reached compromises where we disagreed. This person, after many days, has still been unable to do that. Edit5001 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Edit5001 and Triacylglyceride: I would like for you two to sort this matter out at the article's talk page, rather than edit war on the face of the article. I see promising signs that you two are doing that. The article is not currently under 1RR, and I would like to keep it that way—but if the edit warring continues, I reserve the right to place the article under that sanction. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't know the article was 1RR so I apologize if it is, I was following 3RR. There has been an issue here with Triacylglyceride failing to address my points/concerns (or the points/concerns of multiple others) on the Talk page, never offering any type of consensus we could agree on in the edits, and at times flat out stops responding even when politely pinged for a response. I suppose I should have asked for arbitration or something along those lines, but I really hoped we would've been able to resolve this through discussion or simply adjusting eachother's edits instead of having mine simply reverted. I've had many instances in the past where myself and other users worked on edits together, listened to eachother's points, and reached compromises where we disagreed. This person, after many days, has still been unable to do that. Edit5001 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, sounds good. I had a wrong impression from the 1RR rule on abortion-related articles. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Parekendo361 reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: )
Page: Nutrilite
User being reported: User:Parekendo361
Previous version reverted to: [53]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]
Comments:
WP:SPA account is repeatedly inserting unsourced and blatantly promotional content into the article and has ignored 3 previous warnings on their Talk page to stop doing so. Getting difficult to assume WP:AGF and a block seems to be warranted. Note that the editor had several other edits (insertion of WP:PROMO content and copyright violation/plagiarism) that were reverted in the preceding days (Dec 10-11) but they were gray lined so I couldn't link them. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)